Physical design system and method

ABSTRACT

A design system for designing complex integrated circuits (ICs), a method of IC design and program product therefor. A layout unit receives a circuit description representing portions in a grid and glyph format. A checking unit checks grid and glyph portions of the design. An elaboration unit generates a target layout from the checked design. A data prep unit prepares the target layout for mask making. A pattern caching unit selectively replaces portions of the design with previously cached results for improved design efficiency.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation/divisional application ofallowed U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/425,603, (Attorney docketNo. YOR920040209US2) entitled “PHYSICAL DESIGN SYSTEM AND METHOD” toJohn M. Cohn et al., filed Apr. 17, 2009; and of U.S. Pat. No.7,536,664, “PHYSICAL DESIGN SYSTEM AND METHOD” to John M. Cohn et al.,filed Aug. 12, 2004, both assigned to the assignee of the presentinvention and incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention is related to integrated circuit (IC) and chipdesign systems and more particularly to computer aided design (CAD)systems for designing ICs and IC chips.

2. Background Description

Semiconductor technology and chip manufacturing advances have resultedin a steady decrease of chip feature size to increase on-chip circuitswitching frequency (circuit performance) and the number of transistors(circuit density). Typical semiconductor integrated circuit (IC) chipsare multilayered units with circuit layers stacked such that layerfeatures overlay one another to form individual devices and connectdevices together. Individual layers normally are patternedlithographically using well known photolithographic techniques asapplied to semiconductor manufacturing. Normally, a chip designercreates an electrical or logic representation of a new chip that isconverted to a chip/circuit layout. The chip/circuit layout is convertedto mask shapes that are printed on photolithographic masks. Eachphotolithographic mask is used to print a pattern on a semiconductorwafer, which may define local wafer properties or one of thechip/circuit layers.

Previously, both design and manufacturing have operated on theassumption that the geometries of the designed layout and manufacturedwafer, as well as those of the photomasks used to transfer the designgeometries to the wafer, closely resemble each other. As semiconductortechnology has pushed the limit of physical processes and materials,this assumption is no longer valid. As a result, increasing creativity,effort and expense has been necessary for design, lithographicpatterning and manipulating the design data flow to manufacturing. Insome cases, manufacturing costs and risks have made state of the artlayout methodology and supporting computer-aided design tools inadequatefor producing manufacturable designs, i.e., fabricated wafers thatexactly satisfy the properties intended/assumed/modeled in the design.

Thus, there is a need for design tools that reduce the cost and risk oflayout generation and layout checking, and that improves the efficiencyof layout data preparation. In particular, there is a need for designtools that improve design manufacturability, i.e., providing designs forwhich the fabricated wafers will more exactly satisfy the propertiesintended/assumed/modeled in the design phase, at lower manufacturingcost and risk.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is a purpose of the invention to simplify circuit physical design;

It is yet another purpose of the invention to reduce the cost and riskof layout generation and layout checking;

It is yet another purpose of the invention to improve the efficiency oflayout data preparation;

It is yet another purpose of the invention to achieve the design goals,matching the final fabricated wafer more exactly to theintended/assumed/modeled design properties and at lower manufacturingcost and risk.

The present invention relates to a design system for designing complexintegrated circuits (ICs), a method of IC design and program producttherefor. A layout unit receives a circuit description representingportions in a grid and glyph format. A checking unit checks grid andglyph portions of the design. An elaboration unit generates a targetlayout from the checked design. A data prep unit prepares the targetlayout for mask making A pattern caching unit selectively replacesportions of the design with previously cached results for improveddesign storage efficiency.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The foregoing and other objects, aspects and advantages will be betterunderstood from the following detailed description of a preferredembodiment of the invention with reference to the drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 shows a simple example of an integrated circuit (IC) chip,process neutral, physical design flow according to a preferredembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 shows a simple L3GO layout, e.g., from the layout creation;

FIG. 3 shows an example in more detail of L3GO design and fabricationdataflow;

FIG. 4 shows a flow diagram example of design entry and editing and, inparticular, adding glyphs;

FIG. 5 shows an example of a representation of glyph patterns in a localarea attributed for pattern caching;

FIGS. 6A-B, show an example of pattern caching in two passes for aneighborhood that is a single conversion unit, e.g., elaboration unit;

FIG. 7 shows a flow diagram example of checking L3GO specific parts of aL3GO layout (i.e., the glyphs) for compliance against L3GO rules;

FIG. 8 shows a flow diagram example of elaboration of a L3GO layout inthe elaboration unit, i.e., converting the glyph-based geometry intoconventional geometry.

DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

Turning now to the drawings and, more particularly, FIG. 1 shows asimple example of an integrated circuit (IC) chip, process neutral,physical design flow 100 according to a preferred embodiment of thepresent invention. A typical state of the art circuit design is providedfor physical design 110, primarily in a process neutral grid and glyphrepresentation format. A pattern caching unit 120 monitors and analyzesthe process neutral chip physical design flow 100 for optimum handlingand workload reduction as the particular grid and glyph representationor layout 130 from physical design 110 traverses the flow. A preferredlayout 130 is in a format referred to herein as a layout using griddedglyph geometric objects (L3GO) and referred to a L3GO layout. A L3GOlayout 130 is, essentially, an extension to a conventional design.Conventional physical design layouts are organized in cells, layers,transforms and represented solely by polygonal shapes with coordinatesin database units (DBU(s)), typically much smaller than the minimummanufacturable feature (e.g., 1 nm) for precise shape and positionspecification. However, a L3GO layout is much simpler and on a much morecoarse grid with few optional conventional shapes, but primarilyL3GO-specific components, i.e., grids, glyphs and attributes.

The completed L3GO layout 130 from physical design 110 is checked inchecking unit 140 for L3GO specific rule violations as well as othertypical physical design rule violations. After checking, the checkedL3GO layout passes to an elaboration unit 150, which expands the gridand glyph design to conventional layout shapes for the particularselected technology to produce a target layout 160. The target layoutpasses to data preparation, e.g. in a data prep unit 170, whichpreprocesses the design shapes using typical integrated circuit (IC)design mask making data preparation techniques, e.g., resolutionenhancement techniques (RETs) and optical proximity correction (OPC).

Again, pattern caching 120 monitors for previously encountered patternsat each of the units or combination of units and substitutes previouslycomputed cached results for previously encountered patterns, whereverpossible to reduce overall workload. In particular, pattern caching 120leverages pattern repetition within a design to reduce the overall aswell as individual unit computation required for a particular L3GOlayout and also, reduces the data needed to represent the output. In alarge design in particular, the L3GO constraints increase the likelihoodthat many local areas of the design are identical, above and beyondinherent repetition of nested hierarchical design structures. Typically,the physical design is partially flattened to address any hierarchicalrepetition using one of a number of existing techniques, e.g., U.S. Pat.No. 5,519,628, entitled System and Method for Formulating Subsets of ahierarchical Circuit” to Russell et al., issued May 21, 1996. Theflattened design has a number of collections of glyphs on one or morelayers that are partitioned into a set of sub-glyphs. Glyphs may bepartitioned into sub-glyphs, e.g., based on the interaction of glyphs orparts of glyphs at a distance up to the radius of interaction (ROI) ofthe computation to be performed. Typically for OPC, for example, the ROIis two to three times the optical wavelength. A pattern is encoded foreach subglyph that includes the configuration of the resulting flattenedsub-glyph set in the ROI neighborhood. The computation may be reduced bysearching for each current subglyph's pattern in a pattern dictionarythat contains previously-processed patterns. If the pattern is notfound, then the result for the current subglyph and its surroundingpattern is computed, e.g., using OPC. The new pattern result is storedin the pattern dictionary with the pattern as its key, and the result isadded to the overall output. Otherwise, if the pattern is found, thepreviously-computed result is taken from the pattern dictionary andadded to the overall output. Output data volume may be reduced byrepresenting frequently-repeated patterns as cells having multipleinstances.

FIG. 2 shows an example of a simple L3GO layout 180 from the layoutcreation 110 of FIG. 1. Generally, typical L3GO layouts includeprimarily three simple geometric types of primitives or glyphs, pointglyphs 182 (also referred to herein as points), stick glyphs 184 (alsoreferred to herein as sticks) and rectangle glyphs 186 (also referred toherein as rectangles). The grid is a regular rectangular array of points188, all of which are subsets of a built-in manufacturing grid. Eachglyph is specified with respect to the grid and assigned to a layer.Attributes also may be assigned to each glyph that carry arbitraryadditional information including, for example, design intent, e.g.,indicating that a polysilicon level glyph is in a timing-critical net.In a typical L3GO layout 130, each grid and glyph occupies a particularcell and layer. Rules for hierarchical glyph replication (e.g., fornesting) follow the usual conventions for shapes.

Point glyphs 182 are dimensionless or O-dimensional points lying at gridpoints and are typically used for vertical interconnections, e.g.,contacts and vias. Stick glyphs 184 are 1-dimensional line segmentsdrawn between two grid points. Typically, stick glyphs 184 are used forFET gates or for interconnections. Rectangle glyphs 186 are2-dimensional, axis-aligned rectangles with vertices on grid points,typically used for diffusion regions. As with polygonal shapes inconventional layouts, each L3GO glyph resides on a particular designlayer (e.g., POLY, DIFF), which indicates its function, wafer materialand etc. Optionally, components not amenable to the grid and glyphrestrictions (e.g., memory bit cells and analog devices) may be includedin the L3GO layout represented by more conventional polygonal shapes.

The L3GO layout, e.g., 180, is passed to layout checking 140. Byrestricting layout geometry, specifying and checking layouts isconsiderably simplified over more conventional design approaches. L3GOlayouts may be checked with simple pattern matching, i.e., matchinglocal configurations of glyphs against a pattern library of allowed anddisallowed configurations. L3GO patterns are conjunctive and disjunctivecombinations of primitive functions (glyph type, orientation and size).Advantageously, pattern matching may use efficient subgraph isomorphismalgorithms. Unlike traditional design approaches, design rules need notbe defined by complex arbitrary geometric computations that may be basedon a large number of primitive functions and composition operators.

The elaboration unit 150 converts L3GO layouts into more conventionallayout shapes. At its simplest, the elaboration unit converts: pointglyphs 182 into squares of a fixed size, where that size may depend upondesign layer for the particular point glyph 182; stick glyphs 184 intorectangles of fixed width and overhang, i.e., with respect to stickglyph start and end grid points; and, rectangle glyphs 186 intorectangles with specified overhang with respect to vertex grid points.Further, the elaboration unit 150 may perform more complextransformations involving single glyphs or glyphs in a specifiedcontext. For example, the amount of end-overhang for a stick glyph 184can be predicated on the proximity to nearby same-layer glyphs, whetherthe particular stick glyph represents the end of a polysilicon gate or aconnecting wire and/or, glyphs on other layers (e.g., diffusions, vias).Further, the glyph-to-conventional shape transformation can includecertain design-for-yield actions (DFY) such as the insertion ofredundant contacts or vias, and the addition of landing pads aroundvertical connections.

The target layout 160 from the elaboration unit 150, typically includesshapes that are compatible with state of the art layout design flows,but with additional information from elaboration. This additionalinformation conveys geometric intent and includes tolerances on thevariability in geometric parameters, e.g., local line width, localspacing, and corner rounding allowable by downstream processes. Thisgeometric intent information reflects the design intent that is moredirectly coded in the glyphs as designed. For example, a stick glyphrepresenting a polysilicon gate might be labeled with allowable gatelength (L_(eff)) variability based on timing or power constraints. Inthis example, elaboration may convert this into a linewidth variabilitytolerance that labels the resulting rectangular target shape. Downstreamprograms (e.g., OPC) may use the geometric intent information to decideprecision level used in generating and representing corrections and tomake trade-offs between mutually exclusive corrections constrained bymask-making requirements. Some existing OPC programs have provisions forrepresenting and using such tolerance information, albeit indirectly.

Again, it should be noted that pattern caching 120 can be applied tochecking 140, during elaboration in elaboration unit 150, to elaborationin combination with RETs and OPC or, to any sequence of functions shownin FIG. 1 as long as the starting input is a L3GO design. So, forexample pattern caching can be applied to elaboration in combinationwith RETs and OPC and further followed by process simulation andextraction for providing electrical parametric models for the originalL3GO layout from layout creation 110.

FIG. 3 shows an example in more detail of L3GO design and fabricationdataflow 200 according to a preferred embodiment of the presentinvention with reference to the example of physical design flow 100 ofFIG. 1 with identical features labeled identically. Layout creation ordesign entry and editing 110 may be, e.g., interactive through agraphical user interface (GUI) at any state of the art workstation,computer terminal, personal computer, or the like running a suitabledesign tool, guided by L3GO design rules 202. Preferably, the designtool includes an application extension of a standard state of the artlayout tool, e.g., an extension written in the SKILL programminglanguage derived from LISP and written for the Cadence Virtuoso™ layouteditor. The L3GO layout 130 is checked 140 interactively against theL3GO design rules 202 as the L3GO layout 130 is generated. Once entryand editing is complete, the final L3GO layout 130 is checked 140 andsent to elaboration 150. Elaboration rules 204 are applied to the L3GOlayout 130 to generate the target design 160. Preferably, the targetdesign 160 is provided in an industry standard format as geometricinformation, attributes and/or properties, e.g., OpenAccess, or in adata interchange format such as GDSII or OASIS. The target design 160 ispassed to data prep 170. Data prep 170 uses mask creation data toconvert target design shapes into proper mask shapes 206. Primarily, themask shape data 206 are sent to a fabricator 207 for conversion tophotomasks and then used to pattern wafers. Preferably, in addition, themask shape data 206 passes to a print simulation 208 to generate wafercontours 210 that indicate how the shapes will print. The wafer contours210 are passed to physical model extraction 212. Preferably, the L3GOlayout is maintained in the same format from target design 160 to modelextraction 212. Model extraction 212 generates a circuit model 214 forthe design from the wafer contours 210. As with any design, the circuitmodel 214 may verify that the design will print as it should be printedand to insure design integrity, e.g., design timing 216, power 218 andetc. Pattern caching 120 allows an end to end analysis of the particulardesign from entry 110 to elaboration 150 to data prep 170 to simulation208 to subsequent analysis 214, 216, 218 and finally to any subsequentanalysis.

Primarily, L3GO rules 202 include glyph-specific design rules thatrestrict the design to L3GO geometry, rules relating glyphs toconventional layout shapes and rules for checking any conventionalshapes included in a particular design. So, instead of specifyingconstraints in terms of complex inequalities involving relative edgeplacements, the L3GO rules are constraints on individual glyphs andlocal configurations of glyphs, e.g., a polysilicon gate must be ahorizontal stick spanning at least two polysilicon gate grid points andmust be separated from other polysilicon gate glyphs by at least twogrid spaces. The L3GO rules 202 may be in text files or run sets, suchas are used for conventional state of the art design rule checkers. Oncedefined, the L3GO rules 202 may be converted into internal form by thechecking unit 140. Rules that relate glyphs to conventional layoutshapes and conventional design rules for conventional shapes may beimplemented using rule representations for a conventional shape checkerlike Mentor Graphics Calibre™, for example.

The elaboration rules 204 define the conversion from L3GO designs intoconventional, shape-based target designs 160. Simple rules are appliedto single glyphs, e.g., polysilicon gate glyphs may be expanded in asingle direction into rectangles with a length that of the glyph lengthand a width is the critical polysilicon gate level line width. Morecomplex rules may apply to glyphs or parts of glyphs depending upon theparticular context. For example, first metal level line-ends may beextended if there is no crossing first metal level glyph within two gridspaces. In another example, dog-bone anchors may be added if first metallevel glyphs are not parallel within two grid spaces. Further, morecomplex rules may be specified for patterns of glyphs, glyph parts,geometric relations, and logical connectives. For example, anelaboration rule may be included for the occurrence of polysilicon gateglyphs and metal level glyphs meeting at a contact point glyph thatextends the polysilicon gate shape one grid along the first metal levelline and adds a redundant contact shape at the new polysilicon gateshape end.

Preferably, L3GO-specific design components are encoded, using one oftwo approaches, i.e., either extending the L3GO properties and values toexisting data models or, providing new types of design objects. So,according to the first preferred approach, extensibility mechanisms ofthe Open Access (OA) data model (properties and values) are used to addnew object types to OA persistent and in-core storage. These objecttypes are wrapped with C++ classes or SKILL (LISP) data formanipulation. According to the second preferred approach, new types ofdesign objects may be represented as conventional design objects withspecial interpretations. For example, the grid for a particular layer ina particular cell may be represented by a right triangular shape on thatlayer in that cell. The base of the right triangular shape is the Xpitch, height is the Y pitch, and the perpendicular corner is the gridorigin. Point glyphs may be represented by a circle with minimum radius,e.g., 1 database unit. Stick glyphs may be represented by a path or lineobject with minimum width, e.g., a line that is 2 database units wide,one on either side of the line. Rectangle glyphs may be representeddirectly as conventional rectangular shapes with vertices on grid pointsor coordinates. The particular approach selected depends upon thecapabilities of the particular design tool used for L3GO design entryand editing 110.

FIG. 4 shows a flow diagram example of design entry and editing 110 and,in particular, adding glyphs. Editing 110 is typically doneinteractively, e.g., at a suitably equipped workstation, computerterminal or PC. Design editing begins with selecting a cell 1120 whichis displayed 1104 and, then, selecting a layer 1106 in the cell. In step1108, the grid is defined for the selected layer, if it has not beenpreviously defined. In step 1110 the newly defined or previously definedgrid is displayed. A glyph type is selected for adding in step 1112. Ifpoint glyphs are selected, then in step 1114 p a grid point is selected.Similarly, if stick types are selected, two points are selected in step1114 s to define the stick glyph and/or, if rectangle glyphs have beenselected, then two points indicating opposing vertices are selected in1114 r. Next, in step 1116 p (or 1116 s or 1116 r) the point (stick orrectangle) glyph is added to the design and in step 1118, the cell/layeris checked against L3GO rules 204. If added the glyph fails the rulescheck 1118, it is removed. Then, the designer is returned to glyph typeselection 1112 and allowed to select another point glyph 1114 p, stickglyph 1114 s or rectangle glyph 1114 r. Otherwise, if the glyph complieswith L3GO rules checking in 1118, more glyphs may be added to the samelayer in 1112 or, the designer can select another layer for editing in1106 or, the designer may select a different cell in 1104. In addition,the designer may select other editing actions 1120, including moving,modifying or deleting glyphs. Once the designer has completed enteringand editing design data in step 110, the L3GO design is sent to checking140.

Pattern caching 120 allows an end to end processing of the particulardesign from entry 110 to elaboration 150 to data prep 170 to simulation208 to subsequent analysis 214, 216, 218 and finally to subsequentanalysis, which would check for defect-limited and circuit-limited yieldprograms. The added expense for complete end to end chip processing isreduced because L3GO chip layouts may be a restricted set of glyphs on arestricted grid. Thus, L3GO-generated layouts may be decomposed into afinite (albeit typically large) local configuration set. Advantageously,pattern caching 120 provides a general mechanism that may be done in thebackground of any sequence of steps that start with the L3GO design.

Essentially, pattern caching 120 combines a L3GO conversion cache ofpreviously encountered local configurations with pattern matching withthe cached patterns and subsequent identical local configurations. So,pattern caching 120 determine whether a particular configuration hasbeen encountered before for each local L3GO design flow/dataflow (e.g.,100 in FIG. 1, 200 in FIG. 3) neighborhood operation, e.g., elaboration150, elaboration 150 and data prep 170, elaboration 150 with data prep170 and simulation 208, and etc. Thus, the L3GO layout for any designcontinues normally until and unless pattern caching recognizes apreviously encountered cached pattern. If pattern caching 120 recognizesa cached pattern, instead of passing through the entire design flow 100,the result for the cached pattern is retrieved, stitched into the flowand the corresponding neighborhood is bypassed. Otherwise, patterncaching 120 identifies and caches any previously unencountered patternsare identified, suitably trimmed and indexed by the local pattern.Depending on the frequency of repetition and length of differentpatterns, the cache, optionally accompanied by simple use-countstatistics, may be relatively small. Thus, generally, the form thatpattern caching takes depend upon the particular tool(s) used in theL3GO dataflow.

FIG. 5 shows an example of a representation of glyph patterns in a localarea 220 attributed for pattern caching 120. In this example, the localconfiguration and pattern matching is based on the underlying L3GO grid222. Each grid edge, e.g., 225, spans between adjacent grid points,e.g., 224 and 226. Occupancy attributes (e.g., a 1 or a 0) are attachedto relevant edges and indicate whether the edge is occupied by a part ofa L3GO stick glyph 228, e.g., on the polysilicon gate layer. Once theoccupancy attributes are attached, the grid point 226 can be labeledwith a twelve bit word, each of bits corresponding to one of the edgeswithin the region-of-interest (ROI). Pattern caching 120 may be done intwo separate passes through a particular neighborhood, matching passfollowed by a substitution pass. In the first pass through theneighborhood, one instance is identified for each unique localconfiguration in the design. In the second pass through theneighborhood, the actual processing steps are applied to the first passresults to generate an output, e.g., elaboration and data prep produce amask layout.

FIGS. 6A-B, show an example of pattern caching in two passes 1200, 1250,according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, for aneighborhood that is a single conversion unit (e.g., elaboration unit130) in this example. The first pass 1200 in FIG. 6A begins in step 1202by initializing a grid marker array with a corresponding entry for eachgrid point, e.g., resetting each entry to zero. Then, in step 1204 afirst grid point is selected from the array, e.g., 226 in FIG. 5. Instep 1206, occupancy attributes are assigned to the 12 surrounding edgesand the selected grid point is labeled with those attributes, e.g., as a12 bit pattern word, K. Next in step 1208, the current pattern word iscompared with cached patterns to determine whether the current patternword has been previously encountered, i.e., the word for the currentpattern matches a cached word. If the current pattern word matches,then, the match is the result of current bit pattern encoding theparticular neighborhood. So, returning to step 1204, the next grid pointis selected, preferably in scanline order. Again, in step 1206 occupancyattributes are assigned to any previously unassigned entries and in step1208 cached patterns are checked for the pattern word. If the patternword is not found in the pattern cache, in step 1210 the pattern ismarked as new and cached in step 1212. Then, returning to step 1204, thenext point is selected. This continues until all of the grid points havebeen considered in step 1204.

Once all of the grid points have been considered, the design data may bereduced to only the marked patterns for the current neighborhood, i.e.,only those patterns that did not match any previously in the cache. So,beginning in step 1214 a grid edge is selected and in step 1216 checkedfor a nearby marker. If none are found, then in step 1218 the selectededge is erased from the design and returning to step 1214, the next edgeis selected, again preferably in scanline order. If a marker is found instep 1216, the edge is left untouched and returning to step 1214, thenext edge is selected. After all of the edges have been considered instep 1214, the edited design is output in step 1220 and the patterncache is output in step 1222 for normal treatment in the neighborhood.After outputting the edited design in step 1220 and the cache in step1222, the marked pattern portions are treated normally as they traversethe neighborhood to emerge, e.g., treated as normal glyphs forelaboration 130 or as normal wafer contours from 208. It should be notedthat to reduce and minimize the amount of storage used for the markerarray, the grid marking of steps 1202-1212 may be pipelined with designediting steps 1214-1222.

Following the first pass, the edited design resulting from step 220 isthe input to the neighborhood, i.e., the specified program(s) with thedesired operation(s).

The second pass 1250 in FIG. 6B begins in step 1252 by inputting theoriginal L3GO design. In step 1254 result of processing the editeddesign by the specified program(s) is retrieved and in step 1256 thepattern cache is retrieved. Then, in step 1258 a grid point is selectedfrom the array. In step 1260 the 12 bit word pattern for the selectedgrid point is retrieved from the grid marker array. In step 1262, thepattern cache is checked for the pattern K encoding the neighborhoodaround edge(I,J). If the result entry indicates that edge(I,J) is thefirst occurrence of K, then in step 1264, this result indicates that theneighborhood around edge(I,J) was part of the actual-processed editeddesign, and so the output does not change. However, if the cache lookupfor K indicates that the first occurrence of K was at some location(P,Q) other than (I,J), then in step 1266 that output around (P,Q) iscopied to the output around (I,J). Otherwise, if the selected wordpattern matches a cached pattern, the cached pattern result is insertedin the result. Once the appropriate pattern result has been inserted, ifnecessary, into the output in step 1268, the next grid point is selectedin step 1258, preferably in scanline order. After all of the grid pointshave been selected in step 1258, the design exits the second pass instep 1270. It should be noted that as shown and described in thisexample for a single unit neighborhood, the two pattern caching steps1200, 1250 can be further combined with any of a number of hierarchicalshape-processing mechanisms, e.g., Niagara. See, e.g., Russell et al.,supra. Thus, the presence of these repetitive patterns in such ahierarchical design minimizes encoding so that the flat design can beencoded as a minimal set of flat designs for all unique repetitivepattern combinations, i.e., essentially, pattern caching at a higherstructure level.

FIG. 7 shows a flow diagram example of checking 140 L3GO specific partsof a L3GO design (i.e., the glyphs) for compliance against L3GO rules(e.g., 202 of FIG. 3) according to a preferred embodiment of the presentinvention. Checking 140 matches design glyph patterns and, optionally,nearby context glyphs against the pattern part of each rule. Thus,problems with arithmetic robustness are avoided and checking efficiencymay be improved using various algorithmic search structures and hashingmethods. So, beginning in step 1402 L3GO rules 202 are retrieved for theselected technology, e.g., from storage. In step 1404, the L3GO rules202 are sorted by glyph layer. In step 1406 the rules are further sortedto differentiate between violative and discretionary rules.Discretionary rules specify local patterns that are allowednotwithstanding other rules. In step 1408 a context size is determinedfor each rule, i.e., the distance beyond a given glyph that the layoutmust be examined to detect violating or supporting other glyphs. First,in step 1410 a layer of the design is selected for checking Next in step1412, an individual glyph on that layer is selected. Then, in step 1414a first one of the rules is selected and in step 1416 the context tosurrounding glyphs and any other traditional shapes in the immediateproximity of the selected glyph may be gathered for the selected glyph.In step 1418 the selected glyph is checked against the selected rule todetermine if the rule applies to the selected glyph and its context. Ifnot, returning to step 1414 the next rule is selected. Whenever aparticular rule is found to have matched the selected glyph and itscontext in step 1418, then in step 1420, the rule is checked todetermine if it is a violative or discretionary rule. If it is aviolative rule, an error is reported in step 1422 and, returning to step1412 another glyph is selected. If it is a discretionary rule, then theselected glyph in its context is considered valid in step 1412 and thechecking can proceed to the next glyph in step 1414.

Once glyphs have been checked, conventional design shapes and theirinteractions in a L3GO design glyphs may be done using any suitableconventional design rules checking (DRC) tool. Conventional shapes maybe checked against L3GO design glyphs on a conventional DRC tool bytreating the L3GO shapes as line-like or point-like conventional shapes.Alternately, L3GO-compliant representations may be provided for theconventional shapes (e.g., least enclosing rectangles snapped outward tothe appropriate grid for the design level) and, then the representationsof the conventional shapes are checked against L3GO shapes usingL3GO-specific checking mechanisms. Preferably, the checking unit 140 isa subunit of L3GO entry/editing unit 120 for seamless correct byconstruction layout generation, e.g., the designer cannot enter a glyphthat violates non-discretionary or violative rules. Optionally, however,the checking unit 140 may operate as a separate unit. Once the L3GOlayout has been checked, it is passed to elaboration in the elaborationunit 150.

FIG. 8 shows a flow diagram example of elaboration of a L3GO design inthe elaboration unit 150, i.e., converting the glyph-based geometry intoconventional geometry according to a preferred embodiment of the presentinvention. This may be as simple as fleshing-out stick glyphs intorectangles and point glyphs into squares, or it may involve morecomplex, context-dependent geometric processing, e.g. expanding apolysilicon border around a contact glyph. First in step 1502 theelaboration rules (e.g., 204 in FIG. 3) are retrieved for the selectedtechnology, e.g., the elaboration rules 204 may be a text file in remotestorage. Generally, each of the elaboration rules 202 includes a patternand an associated action. A typical pattern may include a base, i.e., aglyph or part of a glyph (e.g., part of a stick glyph including one ofits endpoints) and a context, i.e., a set of glyphs or glyph parts thatmust be present in order for the pattern to match. Next, in step 1504the elaboration rules are sorted by the specificity of the pattern, frommost specific to least specific. A specific rule, for example, mayrequire that: ends of polysilicon gate stick glyphs be extended at leastthree grid spaces long and coincident with perpendicular first metallevel stick glyphs, at least four grid spaces long with a coincidentcontact level glyphs. By contrast, a least specific rule, for examplemay designate treatment of diffusion layer rectangular glyphs. In step1506 the most specific rules is selected. In step 1508 the design isscanned from most to least specific using, for example, a patternmatching algorithm to identify instances of patterns, until in step1510, an instance of a pattern is found. A corresponding action isinvoked in step 1512 for each match and the structure matching thepattern (possibly with free variables) is elaborated. The elaboratedshape is output as part of the target design 160 and, in step 1514 thematching glyph or subglyph corresponding the base part of the pattern ismarked as done.

Primarily, the target design 160 is compatible with conventional designsand flows seamlessly into well known state of the art downstreamanalysis and data prep. Preferably, elaboration 150 adds geometricintent information as an extension to conventional design information.The geometric intent information specifies tolerances and/or generalconstraints on individual shapes or parts of shapes, e.g., a maximumcorner rounding radius for an inside corner of diffusion level shapesnear a gate level shapes or, the tolerance on the specified gate levelwidth variations. Elaboration 150, for example, can add geometric intentinformation translated from higher-level designer intent information,e.g., marking a polysilicon gate level shape forming a gate shape asnon-critical may result in a looser tolerance and increased nominal linewidth in the corresponding conventional target design shape. Also,preferably, the geometric intent information is provided as industrystandard attributes and/or properties or in a data interchange format.By using these industry standard attributes or data interchange format,design intent that applies to whole shapes may be specified directly,e.g., it may be easier to determine which parts of a polysilicon gatelevel shape form the gate and which parts are poly interconnects.Additionally, design intent can be encoded for parts of shapes, e.g., ageometric tolerance on a particular edge of a shape may be representedas a numeric tolerance attached to the edge, either by the serial orderof the shape edges or geometrically, e.g., by defining endpoints.

Data prep 170 derives mask shapes from target shapes and design intentinformation. For any patterns not handled by pattern caching 120, acollection of shape-transformation applications are applied to thetarget shapes to compensate for various aspects of the target technologyprocesses and materials. In one preferred embodiment, industry-standardsoftware tools, such as Mentor Calibre, implement suitable well knowndata prep techniques, e.g., alternating phase shift mask generation andoptical proximity correction. Geometric information is attached to theprepared target shapes sufficient to build mask shapes 206, again asindustry standard attributes and/or properties or in a standard datainterchange format. Preferably, the mask shape 206 geometric informationincludes mask intent information, similar to the geometric intentinformation for target shapes. The mask intent information reduces thetime and cost of mask-building because a lower precision is required formask-writing and inspection.

The simulation 208 predicts how the physical structures finally print onwafers (as wafer contours 210) that are manufactured in a specifiedprocess. Typically for simulation 208, previously simulated cachedpatterns are retrieved or new simulations are created using, preferably,the same industry standard software tools. The simulation 208 predictsthe nominal wafer shapes precisely and, also, the variation of thoseshapes including correlation to underlying systematic effects variables,e.g., through-dose, through-focus variations, etc. The wafer contours210 are geometric shapes that represent the expected final fabricatedmaterial shapes, e.g., using standard design representations or datainterchange formats, augmented with properties that may be bound toindividual shapes or to entire layers. Typical such augmented propertiesindicate each wafer contour shape's correspondence to process variableconditions. Preferably, this variational information is maintainedexplicitly rather than lumped together, for example, into nominalcontours and tolerance information. Thus, detailed correlation among thevariations is available to downstream analysis programs.

Extraction 212 and Circuit Models 214 include application of a number ofwell known analysis processes to convert the wafer contours 210 (withtheir variations) into meaningful electrical parameters forconsideration by the layout designer or in the layout-generatingprogram, e.g., switching time, power dissipation 218, defect and noisesensitivity and etc. In particular, extraction provides a circuit modelrepresentation that depends on the particular parameter(s) beingderived, e.g., device switching time and interconnect propagation time216. For example, device switching time and interconnect propagationtime 216 may be computed using an industry-standard extraction softwaretool, such as AssuraRCX™. Also, for other properties such as verticalinterconnect defect sensitivity, ad hoc applications based onindustry-standard shape-processing software tools could be used.

Advantageously, L3GO design rules may be expressed as a very simple setof allowed and disallowed patterns of grids and glyphs, omitting anydetails about functions used to check the rules. L3GO layouts may becreated by conventional design tools by suitably representing glyphsusing conventional shapes, e.g., narrow paths (e.g., sub-minimum lines)for sticks and small (e.g., sub-minimum) squares for points. Further,most layout editors provide for customizing layout editing environmentsto simplify the entry of L3GO layouts. For example, editing may becustomized to allow entering sticks and points directly rather thanusing conventional shape approximations. Also, the layout editingenvironment may be selected to enforce proper glyph alignment with thelayout grid. Optionally, pattern-based design rule checking may beintegrated into the layout editing environment for correct byconstruction layouts, thereby eliminating separate checking steps. Inaddition, in much the same way that gridded routing automaticallygenerates interconnect layouts from schematic netlists, L3GO layouts maybe generated directly from schematic representations because L3GOlayouts are highly constrained by glyphs and coarse grids. As a result,it is not necessary to represent small geometric details that mightotherwise obscure design intent because properties attached to glyphsconvey that intent with respect to devices and connections.

Additionally, unlike typical state of the art technology based designsystems, L3GO designs mitigate the cost of migrating from one technologyto the next. L3GO rules are insensitive to small process changes, as arethe grid and stick level of representation for many designs. Most minorprocess changes do not require any corresponding L3GO rule changes andcan be relegated to elaboration and subsequent automatic process steps.In fact, some L3GO layouts may be completely technology independent,because the L3GO grid and stick representation seamlessly transfers fromone technology to the next without any design changes. Any physicalchanges to the design from migrating between technologies may beeffected in elaboration process and data prep. Simulation can be updatedsimply by using new process models.

Also, pattern caching efficiently processes very detailed L3GO layoutsthrough process simulation and analysis with the design detail levelcontributing to the precision of the resulting models. Pattern cachingdramatically reduces data prep execution time for L3GO layouts, as wellas for other computation intensive steps, because computation for anypattern may only be done once, while the result of the computation isused repeatedly for repeated patterns. This also reduces the output datavolume and makes subsequent computation (e.g., mask fracturing) moreefficient as well. L3GO designs significantly reduce the unpleasantsurprises normally inherent in large designs because the number ofdistinct layouts (i.e., the design space) is greatly reduced. Withsufficient design space reduction, every local layout configuration maybe examined to find and eliminate surprises, at least for the L3GOportions of the particular design.

While the invention has been described in terms of preferredembodiments, those skilled in the art will recognize that the inventioncan be practiced with modification within the spirit and scope of theappended claims.

1. A computer program product for integrated circuit (IC) design, saidcomputer program product comprising a computer usable medium havingcomputer readable program code stored thereon, said computer readableprogram code comprising: computer readable program code means forreceiving a circuit description of an integrated circuit (IC) design andrepresenting portions of said IC design in a grid and glyph format;computer readable program code means for checking grid and glyphportions; computer readable program code means for generating a targetlayout from each checked one of said grid and glyph portions; computerreadable program code means for converting said target layout to masks;and computer readable program code means for selectively replacing onesof said portions with previously cached results.
 2. A computer programproduct as in claim 1, wherein glyphs in said grid and glyph formatinclude point glyphs, line glyphs and rectangle glyphs.
 3. A computerprogram product as in claim 1, wherein said computer readable programcode means for checking comprises: computer readable program code meansfor retrieving stored grid and glyph design rules; computer readableprogram code means for sorting said grid and glyph design rules;computer readable program code means for selecting a glyph for checking;computer readable program code means for comparing a selected said glyphfor compliance with a selected one of said grid and glyph design rules;and computer readable program code means for indicating comparisonresults.
 4. A computer program product as in claim 3, wherein saidcomputer readable program code means for selecting said glyph comprises:computer readable program code means for selecting a design layer;computer readable program code means for selecting a glyph on saidselected design layer; computer readable program code means forselecting one of said grid and glyph design rules for checking.
 5. Acomputer program product as in claim 3, wherein said computer readableprogram code means for indicating comparison results indicates an errorfor a determination that one stored said grid and glyph design rules isviolated.
 6. A computer program product as in claim 5, wherein saidcomputer readable program code means for indicating comparison resultsselectively ignores violations of discretionary said grid and glyphdesign rules.
 7. A computer program product as in claim 1, wherein saidcomputer readable program code means for checking further comprises:computer readable program code means for determining a context size foreach said grid and glyph design rule; and computer readable program codemeans for gathering said context size for said selected glyph.
 8. Acomputer program product as in claim 7, wherein computer readableprogram code means for checking checks gathered context sizes againstsaid rules governing glyph interaction with design shapes responsive toones of said grid and glyph design rules governing glyph interactionwith design shapes and said computer readable program code means fordetermining context size identifies surrounding design shapes.
 9. Acomputer program product as in claim 1, wherein said computer readableprogram code means for generating said target layout comprises: computerreadable program code means for retrieving stored elaboration rules;computer readable program code means for sorting retrieved saidelaboration rules; computer readable program code means for checkingwhether glyphs match any of said retrieved elaboration rules; andcomputer readable program code means for expanding glyphs responsive tomatched said elaboration rules.
 10. A computer program product as inclaim 9, wherein computer readable program code means for sorting sortssaid elaboration rules from most specific to least specific.
 11. Acomputer program product as in claim 9, said computer readable programcode means for generating said target layout further comprising:computer readable program code means for marking each expanded saidglyph as done.
 12. A computer program product as in claim 1, whereinsaid computer readable program code means for selectively replacing onesof said portions comprises: computer readable program code means forretrieving storing results of previously processed patterns from patternstorage; computer readable program code means for identifying designpatterns in said IC design as corresponding to ones of said previouslyprocessed patterns; and computer readable program code means forsubstituting stored said results for identified said design patterns.13. A computer program product as in claim 12, wherein said computerreadable program code means for identifying design patterns comprises:computer readable program code means for scanning areas around eachglyph in said IC design for a pattern matching one of said previouslyprocessed patterns; computer readable program code means for marking agrid location for each unmatched pattern; and computer readable programcode means for reducing said IC design to unmatched patterns.
 14. Acomputer program product as in claim 13, wherein said computer readableprogram code means for scanning areas around each glyph comprises:computer readable program code means for scanning each grid point andchecking for a pattern at said each grid point; computer readableprogram code means for encoding each located said pattern; and computerreadable program code means for comparing each encoded said pattern fora match with said previously processed patterns.
 15. A computer programproduct as in claim 14, wherein computer readable program code means forselectively replacing ones of said portions further comprises: computerreadable program code means for marking each grid edge in closeproximity to an unmatched pattern; and computer readable program codemeans for selectively removing unmarked grid edges.
 16. A computerprogram product as in claim 1, wherein said computer readable programcode means for receiving said circuit description comprises: computerreadable program code means for interactively receiving a circuit designand providing a grid and glyph representation of said circuit design.17. A computer program product as in claim 16, wherein said computerreadable program code means for interactively receiving said circuitdesign comprises: computer readable program code means for receiving acell layout selection for editing; computer readable program code meansfor receiving a grid selection, said cell layout selection being locatedin said grid selection; and computer readable program code means foradding glyphs to said cell layout selection.
 18. A computer programproduct as in claim 17, wherein said computer readable program codemeans for receiving said cell layout selection comprises: computerreadable program code means for selecting said cell layout responsive toa cell selection input; computer readable program code means for causingsaid selected cell layout to be displayed; and computer readable programcode means for selecting a layer in said selected cell layout.
 19. Acomputer program product as in claim 17, wherein said computer readableprogram code means for adding glyphs comprises means for selecting aglyph type and grid points.
 20. A computer program product as in claim17, said computer readable program code means for receiving said circuitdescription further comprising: computer readable program code means forretrieving stored glyph behavioral rules; and computer readable programcode means for checking each added glyph for compliance with said glyphbehavioral rules.
 21. A computer program product as in claim 1, saidcomputer readable program code means for converting said target layoutto masks comprising: computer readable program code means for generatingmask shapes from a prepared said target layout; computer readableprogram code means for generating wafer contours from generated saidmask shapes; computer readable program code means for extracting circuitmodels from generated said wafer contours; and computer readable programcode means for generating expected IC electrical parameters from saidcircuit models.